MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Manikumar and M. Govindaraj, JJ.
S. Reshma —Petitioner
versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal rep. By its Registrar Spencer Towers & Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.5530 of 2014
Decided on 4.1.2017
(2001) 8 SCC 540; AIR 1952 SC 369; (1998) 4 SCC 231; 2013 (2) CTC 356; (1986) 4 SCC 447; (2009) 4 SCC 94; AIR 1954 SC 596; (2014) 3 SCC 92; AIR 1998 SC 74; (2006) 10 SCC 452; (1971) 1 SCC 85; (2006) 1 CTC 328; AIR 1997 SC 1165; AIR 1993 SC 101; (1986) 2 SCC 209; (1999) 4 SCC 306; (1979) 2 SCC 529; 2004 (1) CHN 10; (2002) 7 SCC 657; (1985) 4 SCC 404; (1996) 2 SCC 498; AIR 1953 SC 274; AIR 1965 SC 1457; 2008 (6) MLJ 1181; (2002) 4 All ER 654; (2000) 4 CTC 543; (1992) 1 SCC 335; (2013) 11 SCC 451; (1987) 1 SCC 424; AIR 2004 SC 3625; AIR 1982 Del. 335; (1969) 3 SCC 471; (2015) 5 SCC 574; 2004 (11) SCC 497; AIR 1991 SC 711; AIR 1997 SC 1006; [1964] 1 SCR 371; AIR 1997 SC 1511; AIR 1987 SC 849; AIR 1966 SC 529; AIR 1998 SC 703; AIR 1964 SC 207 : [1964] 4 SCR 280; AIR 1973 SC 2204; (2002) 4 SCC 275 : AIR 2002 SC 1479; 1984 (Spp.) SCC 196; AIR 1984 SC 1022; (2013) 6 SCC 278; AIR 2000 SC 2747 – Referred
S. Manikumar, J.—On 13/7/2011, in D.R.C.No.161/2010, in O.A.No.119 of 2007, Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, has passed the following order:-
“Whereas you the defendants have failed to pay the sum of Rs.6,04,67,154.42 p (Rupees Six crores four lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and fifty four and paise forty two only), payable by you, jointly and severally, to the applicant in terms of Debt Recovery Certificate No.161/2010 dated 14/12/2010 issued in O.A.No.119/2007 drawn up by the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal I, at Chennai, and further interest and costs payable as per law:
Whereas the Certificate holder bank has now identified the undermentioned unsecured immovable property in which the fourth certificate debtor/defaulter is having one third share, being a joint owner, which is sought to be attached/sold by the certificate holder bank in execution of the RC issued against the defaulters.
It is hereby ordered that you, the said defendants be and you are hereby prohibited and restrained from transferring and charging the under mentioned properties in any way and that all persons be and are hereby prohibited and restrained from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge.
Also note that unless the money is paid forthwith the undermentioned properties will be sold by public auction and the money will be realised without any further notice or intimation.
Description of Property
One third undivided share of Ms.L.Rasina (4th certificate debtor/defaulter) in all that piece and parcel of land and building bearing Door No.5, Damodara Mudali Street, Chetpet, Chennai measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 1678.5 sq.ft comprised in S.No.450/5 and 450/41 of Egmore village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, bounder on the North by Club Road; South by Door No.6, Damodara Mudali Street; East by Door No.54 B, 54 A and 54 part of Dr. T.V. Naidu Street and on the West by Door No.4 property owned by LIC of India, situated within the Sub-Registration District of Periamet.”
2. S. Reshma, Chennai, a third party to the above said proceedings, has filed Claim Petition No.26 of 2011 in D.R.C.No.161 of 2010 in O.A.No.109/2007, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, contending inter alia that she is the owner of the property, by virtue of Hiba, dated 9/10/1998, which was reduced into writing on 15/10/1998, under the proceedings of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). In the Claim Petition No.26 of 2011, she has sought for impleadment as respondent No.6 in Recovery proceeding ARC No.161/2010. She has also sought for a prayer, to vacate the order of attachment, dated 13/7/2011, in respect of the undivided share of Ms. L. Rasina, in respect of the property situated at Door No.5, Damodara Mudali Street, Chetpet, Chennai 31. Opposing the prayer sought for, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Asset Reconstruction Division, has filed a detailed counter affidavit.
3. After considering the rival submissions to the challenge viz., the order of attachment, dated 13/7/2011, as against the undivided share of Ms. I. Rasina/fourth defendant (certificate debtor) in respect of the above said property and the claim of the writ petitioner/third party, the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, vide, order, dated 10/12/2013 in C.P.No.26 of 2011 in D.R.C.No.161 of 2010, dismissed the claim petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner/third party has filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, under Section 30 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
5. Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, vide order dated 21/1/2014, rejected the appeal in S.R.No.7183 of 2013 and the same reads as hereunder:-
“The petitioner having filed claim/objection before Recovery Officer as per Rule 11 of Procedure for Recovery of Tax, if aggrieved by any order of RO shall seek Redressal subject to Sub-Rule (6) to Rule 11. No appeal is filed/prefer
Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose
A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu
Chandravarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram
Central Bank of India v. State of Kerla
Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s. Price Waterhosue & Anr.
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd.
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India and another
M. Sathyanathan v. The District Collector
Mohammed All Khan v. W.T. Coinmr.
Mary Roy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
M/s Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Mahesh Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Ors. and Jaswantibai and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 657
Onkarlal Nandlal v. Rajasthan and Anr. (1985) 4 SCC 404
Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P.
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha etc. v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr.
R. Sridharan v. Presiding Officer
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka
Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma
RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Raichurmatham Prabhakar v. Rawatmal Dugar
Refugee Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., New Delhi v. Harbans Singh Bhasin
Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors. v. State of Bihar
Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh and Others
Syed Hasan Rasul Numa v. Union of India
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
State Bank of West Bengal v. Union of India
State of Bihar & Ors. etc. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. etc. etc.
The Balasinor Nagrik Co-op. Bank Ltd., v. Babubhai
The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta
The South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum & Anr.
Union of India Vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.